Followers

About Me

Sunday, June 8, 2014

Spoiler-filled Analysis-
It was only in my last viewing of Eyes Wide Shut, Kubrick’s
most controversial and polarizing film, at Cinema Rendezvous did I realize what
the film-maker was really on about. I believe that Dr. Bill Harford’s journey here captures
man’s first encounter with Helen, the second phase of the anima archetype. It
is in this phase that man sees women to possess no virtue. Kubrick also
addresses sexual incompatibility and the need for communication in a marriage
in the film. Additionally, he talks of the necessity for a man to channelize the
Warrior/Protector archetype to prevent his woman, his anima projection, from feeling defeminised, and
inadvertently him from feeling emasculated, when she compensates by projecting
her own animus elsewhere. The film released after Kubrick’s death, giving rise
to several conspiracy theories surrounding the nature of his death. One of them
suggested that he was killed by cult illuminati.

I always saw Eyes Wide Shut as a psychosexual thriller that
revolved around Bill’s drive for sexual retribution. While that is partly
true, it is hardly his sole motivation. Re-watching the film multiple times helped
peel off the layers and see that there’s far more to it. I firmly believed that
Eyes Wide Shut pointed to Bill and Alice remaining oblivious to a seemingly
conspicuous distance that had crept in between the two of them. This time
though, I felt it was only Bill who was oblivious to the distance. And the
causes for this estrangement seem to bring him at fault. His inability to
sexually satisfy his wife, his non-possessive nature and his
non-confrontational nature would be three to name. He remains blind to the
effect they have on his wife and their relationship. Eyes Wide Shut might also
point to Bill being blind to the primal, animalistic nature of female
sexuality. But, more on that later.

Jordan Belfort (Leo Dicaprio) likes
to play. He plays with people, he plays with stocks, he plays with his clients,
he plays with the law, he plays with his marriage, and more than anything...he
plays with his life in the free world. What he finds most enjoyable is being
put in a situation that he can, and must, turn to his advantage. Winning is
something he doesn’t seem to ever get enough of. With every win, he feels
less and less mortal, more and more invincible. Quitting seems like a slow kill
to him, resigning to the life of a mere mortal in the normal world. “But, who the fuck wanted to live there?” he
asks bewildered. It’s only fun for Jordan when the stakes are continuously
raised.

I would expect most people to characterize The Wolf of Wall
Street as a dark crime-comedy, and while I agree with that categorization, I
think the film is more a biopic than anything else. Jordan Belfort was a
stockbroker convicted of stock manipulation, securities fraud and money
laundering. Scorsese traverses his storyline while constantly evoking his
inextinguishable spirit. And by the end of the film, I felt like I knew what
made this guy tick.

The Great beauty revolves around the life of Jep Gamberdella
(Toni Servillo), writer of his only novel and daily columnist. But instead of
introducing us to him right away, film-maker Paulo Sorrentino first acquaints
us with the world he lives in. He takes us through Jep’s 65th birthday party,
infested with people who seem to have made conscious effort to distinguish
themselves from one another, at face value. We learn later on that they back up
their unique senses of identity by working hard to acquire cultured
tastes and artistic sensibilities.

Then we meet our protagonist, Jep Gamberdella. Sorrentino
slowly closes in on him, showing him as a man who doesn’t feel part of the
happenings despite being involved. Jep talks to us, revealing that he’s proud
to have made it into the highlife. He goes on to confess, “I didn’t just want
to live the highlife. I wanted to be the king
of the highlife. I didn’t want to just go to parties; I wanted to have the
power to make them a failure.”

Saturday, June 7, 2014

Moebius is one of the most ludicrous films I’ve seen in quite a
while. It features intentional overdoses of melodrama, violence, stupidity,
incest, emasculation (both literal and metaphorical), rape, violation,
masturbation and visual metaphors I won’t bother decoding; all while keeping the
flick free of dialogue. Kim Ki Duk goes all-out here both enjoying and abusing
his rank as a well-regarded auteur as he looks to score cringes from his
viewers, both the Kim Ki Duk newbies that don’t expect the worst and the fan
followers that anticipate it. And while it seems that he did succeed in his
intentions (a viewer vomited on his way out at its Venice premiere) the film
didn’t really irk me.

Friday, June 6, 2014

Even with its compromises and overreaching philosophy, The
Counselor is a pretty interesting film. It keeps you involved even when it's falling off the rails.

Michael Fassbender plays The
Counselor who intends to make a big buck through a one-off drug trade with a
Mexican drug cartel. He works with his friend Reiner and middle-man Westrey.
Reiner (Javier Bardem) is playful, trusting and always in the present, reaping
the benefits of the seeds he’s sown. He’s heard the worst of the party he’s in
business with, but doesn’t seem keen on reconsidering the nature of their
relationship. He doesn’t seem too interested in the ifs and coulds. All he
knows is that things are fine as they are. Westray (Brad Pitt), on the other
hand, is more aware of what he’s gotten himself into. He’s willing to take his
chances as long as they come to him. But if things go awry, he has an immediate
way out. He’s willing to leave everything behind if he has to. “It’s not that
you’re going down. It’s what you’re taking down with you,” he echoes later in
the film. The counselor pays heed to both men, who warn him repeatedly, but goes
with the plan anyway, telling himself that this is only a one-time deal.

Thursday, June 5, 2014

Anne Fontaine’s Adore is a piece of tripe. Not only is it
the worst film I’ve seen from this year, it is hands down the worst film I’ve
seen all year. The film opens with two girls running in the woods, as if they
were the last two inhabitants of planet Utopia. Underscoring this scene
sequence is a pleasant, playful music. The two girls find their way into a
deserted beach and soak it up in the sea. They stare into each other’s eyes and
smile. The scene transitions smoothly to the two of them about fifteen years
later. They’re still staring at each other. This transition seems to say that
their bond remains just as strong and isn’t bound by time. The women have their
own sons now. Lil’s (Naomi Watts) husband dies in a car crash while Roz’s
(Robin Wright) husband jokes about it with Lil’s fellow employee at the funeral.

As we’re taken through their lives, we find out that Roz’s
husband Harold, who suspects a lesbian relationship shared between the two
women, feels excluded from his own family, which, by now, includes Lil and her
son. This reasonable fear sends the two women roaring with laughter while
allowing them to bond with each other over deriding the male species. “Bloody
men,” they conclude. Film-maker Fontaine’s characters share the same juvenile
worldview as she demonstrates in Adore.

Wednesday, June 4, 2014

Lone Survivor directed by Peter Berg stars Mark Wahlberg in
the lead role of real-life character Marcus Lutrell, to whom the title of the
film alludes to. It also co-stars Taylor Kitsch, Emile Hirsch, Ben Foster and
Eric Bana. The film opens with a montage bearing a heroic, awe-inspiring
quality that showcases the training regime of Navy SEAL officers. The
physicality of their acts, of them pushing their bodies to its limits, pulls
you in.

Film-maker Berg eventually zooms in on a certain bunch of
officers. We’re shown these guys as belonging to something of a brotherhood
with minimal power dynamics. Peter Berg believes he should induct the viewer
into this fraternity. In order to achieve this, he paints the gang in positive
light. Berg then introduces a comic foil to contrast how much ‘cooler’ the
principal characters are against how much of a dud this foil is. And In a
moment of crisis, this dud seems to have both difficulty and delay in recognizing the gravity of the situation. He is, unlike the main characters of the film, a
misfit. This is as far as Berg is willing to go with characterization. His is
a convenient way to get us to root for the principal characters, without
actually developing them. They’re quickly established as courageous, gritty
individuals who also have a boyish charm that’s likely to appeal to most
people. If only Berg had been subtler.

Tuesday, June 3, 2014

Review. Interpretation. Observations. Spoilers.-The last film I saw at CIFF 2013 was a character study
called Harmony Lessons written and directed by Kazakh film-maker Emir Baigazin.
The film revolves entirely about a 13-year old boy named Aslan who lives with
his grandmother in a crime-ridden village in Kazakhstan. His school is shown to
be run by its students. They work with each other through a certain heirarchy. And in
this social code, we find Aslan to be a complete misfit.

Some kids at school trick Aslan into degrading himself
unknowingly, only to laugh at him later. He is humiliated and ostracized. But
the quiet and detached Aslan lets it slide, comfortably withdrawing into his
own internal world. You don’t ever get to know Aslan well enough to be able to
root for or empathize with him, but you are always intrigued by him.

Monday, June 2, 2014

Walking out of Omar at CIFF 2013, I didn’t think for a
second that the Palestinian film had the potential to be an Oscar contender. Overall,
the film worked for me. But not very well, I must add. It was engaging,
eventful, evenly paced, and cleverly plotted. However, it fails to entice, enthral
or reward the viewer emotionally.

Omar is part-time baker, full-time revolutionary. He scales
Israel-Palestine boundary walls every other day and almost gets shot. But Omar
treats it like just another day at the office. He belongs to a rebellion that
wants to take on armed forces and evict them out of the country despite being
vastly outnumbered. They consider themselves freedom fighters, going as far as
ambushing soldiers from a distance. But we never see what Omar gets from all of
this. His ideological stance on the war or people around him remains unknown.
All we know is that he belongs to a rebellion that provides him a sense of
group identity. Apparently, that is all it takes for Omar to risk his life
everyday and eventually go to war. Film-maker Hany Abu Assad doesn’t believe he
needs to show us what motivates Omar to live this daredevil life. That Omar lives
it stone-faced further confounds the viewer. He acts as if he has nothing to
lose, when in fact he’s shown to share a strong bond with his ever-smiling naivete lover
Nadia.

Friday, May 30, 2014

Andrez Wajda’s biopic film “Walesa. Man of Hope” revolves
around Lech Walesa (Robert Wieckiewics), a libertarian and revolutionary, who brought the first
trade union to Poland during its communist regime. The film takes us through
his life, his deeds and the driving force behind the two.

The film opens with a lady and her assistant in her car. They
pull up in front of Walesa’s apartment and she introduces herself a famous
journalist from the West. The two of them sit beside Walesa about to begin their interview.
Walesa brashly asks her, “Is this interview going to hurt me or help me?” “That
depends entirely on what you say,” she says composed. Meanwhile, we see that
someone else is monitoring and recording their conversations. We learn later
that this person is an official of the country.

Thursday, May 29, 2014

The Priest’s Children directed by Vinko Bresan is one of the
more mainstream films I saw at CIFF 2013. It was silly, comical, family-friendly
and lacking in substance. However, I don’t feel strongly enough to trash it or
dismiss it outright. A film experience like this doesn’t warrant
such emotion. My feelings are mixed, somewhere between disappointment and
annoyance. I’ll admit though, I was mildly amused.

The premise is plain as day. Set in futuristic Croatia,
where the country’s death rate considerably outweighs its birth rate, a man
confesses to a priest that he is a murderer. He kills people before they are
born, that is, by working for a condom factory. Did that score a chuckle out of you? Then
perhaps this is your kind of film. Petar goes on to state that he cannot afford
to lose his job, but can’t help feeling guilty for sinning in this manner. The
priest lets him in on an idea, one that allows him to eat his cake and have it
too. He advises the man to prick a tiny hole in every condom before it is
packaged. The two men conspire together on a quest- to reverse the death-rate-to-birth-rate
ratio- with the help of an eccentric pharmacist who takes up the task of replacing contraceptives with vitamin pills.

Wednesday, May 28, 2014

Rama Burshtein’s Fill the Void opens with a chirpy young
lady, Shira, groom-shopping
at a mall with her mother Revka. The women point to different men scattered around and discuss them like potential
prospects. All of them sport the conventional-orthodox-Jewish look. Afterwards, we see her run up to her pregnant
sister Esther and brace her excitedly telling her that they’ve found a suitor
for her. Her brother-in-law smiles in approval, sharing her joy.

This family seems to have quite a bit going for it. And
everything does go well in their favour. That is, until a tragedy befalls them.
Esther dies in childbirth, only to be survived by her husband Yochay and new-born
son. Instead of focusing on the immediate implications of the tragedy, Rama Burshtein
skips the melodrama and fast-forwards to a point where they’ve moved on with
their lives. The past is no longer a dwelling issue for the family. It's the future. Shira’s marriage is approaching while Yochay himself
is considering remarriage. The question lingering in Burshtein’s mind here is
whether the family fabric will remain intact after such an incident. This
question also happens to prod Shira’s mother, Revka, who dreads the possibility
of an empty house.

Tuesday, May 27, 2014

One of the dullest films I saw in 2013 was a film called
Salvo directed by Fabio Grassadonia and Antonio Piazza. I looked it up before
the screening, only to find that it received multiple awards at the Cannes film
festival. This, I figured, was reason enough for me to choose it over the other
five films playing simultaneously at CIFF 2013. However, this choice misfired
terribly.

Salvo’s plot is wafer-thin. A gangster named Salvo and his
boss go to another part of town to kill select people. Why they do it, what
they have at stake, what this is in response to-- we are given none of these
details. Instead, the film-maker chooses to focus on the more trivial details; like what time Salvo sets his alarm, what his servants think of him, whether
his hostage girl is hungry and whether fish tastes better in a dog bowl.

Monday, May 26, 2014

“Not for the faint-hearted” was all I had to see to choose a
screening of The Whirlpool at CIFF 2013 over one of Oh Boy, a European Film
Award winning black-and-white comedy. I am naturally drawn to boundary pushing films
that can stick a wrench in my gut and effectively reinforce my bleak world-view.

The Serbian film directed by Bojan Vuk Kosovcevic failed to
adequately satisfy my cinematic appetite. However, I still remain in praise of
what it set out to do and how it attempts to accomplish just that, even though
I found the ending quite inconclusive and ambiguous. I couldn’t dismiss away such an
ambitious film that has so much going for it. But I wouldn’t deem it a success
either.

Sunday, May 25, 2014

The Disciple is set on an island inhabited by a family of four. Vilhelm, the man of the house is in charge of a lighthouse situated here while receiving some assistance from his teenage son Gustaf (Patrik Kumpulainen), who works his days just to be able to prove to his father that he is indeed worthy of succeeding
him. Vilhelm’s wife finds solace in music with the help of a piano while their
daughter, the youngest member of the family, gets by playing with a dog in their
barn. A boat approaches the island. Its only passenger is a young boy who
introduces himself as Karl Berg (Erik Lonngren) . He becomes Vilhelm’s disciple.

At first, Vilhelm dismisses the boy as just another kid. But
the boy proves time and again that he is young, strong, capable and a quick
learner. Vilhelm slowly begins to see that Karl can be put to use and effectively
does so. Karl has been sent from an abusive orphanage. He bears signs of whip
lash on his bare back. Although critical by nature, Vilhelm eventually takes a
liking for Karl. He sees Karl as everything his own son is unable to be. He
decides to adopt the boy, welcoming him not just to his new job, but to his new family. While Gustaf doesn’t fare at his academics nearly as well as Karl, Finnish
film-maker Ulrika Bengts resists the temptation to paint him as an easily
replaceable entity. She shows us that Gustaf is actually more of an outdoor
person. He’s an expert with the sextet, good at swimming and excellent at
navigating the boat. He even lets these skills rub off on Karl. His father
knows nothing of Gustaf’s hidden abilities and continues to find ways to
reinforce his own belief, that his son is indeed useless.

Saturday, July 27, 2013

Nicolas Winding Refn’s earlier venture, Drive,
revolved around an ordinary man who felt compelled to embody an ideal action
hero. Circumstances present him with the opportunity (and fate) of fulfilling
this action hero persona he not only wants to be, but, believes he is. Here,
Julian, a terrified boy haunted by mystic tales of a moral reprimander Chang,
is thrown into circumstances that force him to confront this ghoul, who also
happens to be his worst nightmare. Both films bear similar intent and share the
same language. They are based on real emotions, but set in a heightened
reality.

The troubled and tortured Julian is both heart
and soul of this terribly bleak world. He is the first tragic character in the
Refn universe. Ryan Gosling discards his tough guy persona (largely evident in Drive
and for a shorter span of time in The Place beyond the Pines) and delivers his
most complex performance yet. Just watch him paralyzed with fear when Chang
first sets his eyes on him. Or his mouth quiver when a trailed Chang is
suddenly nowhere to be seen.

What makes Vithaya Pansringaram such an
unforgettable embodiment of horror? A combination of his receding hairline (which
is befitting to Chang’s all-knowing nature and intuitive ability), the nonchalant
expression borne throughout on his face (you won’t see a hint of remorse) and
the fact that he treats both his professions, karaoke singing and slicing
limbs, with equal importance. The way the film cuts between him at both of his
fortes brings about a matter-of-fact routinely nature, as if it was just
another working day. Refn pits Julian and Chang against each other in a fight
sequence choreographed with deep thought that will subvert all prior expectations.
I expose this to you because it wasn’t nearly what I was expecting.

Kristin Scott Thomas channelizes Crystal, Julian’s
mother, a woman who possesses the survival instincts and domination-seeking
tendencies of an apex predator. She wouldn’t think twice to serve up her little
sacrificial lamb on a silver platter. It’s a delicate role that could veer
off into caricature, but Thomas conveys her unapologetic nature so effectively
that the abominable Crystal fits in Refn’s world perfectly. The auteur has a
clear-cut vision of his characters even though their extreme characterizations
tend to border on archetypal.

I’ve never in my cinema-associated life
felt a stronger and keener sense of dread. And knowing that this mirrors
Julian’s own sense of dread only elevates Only God Forgives in my eyes.
Seriously, has there ever been a piece of music to intentionally evoke a sense
of queasiness? Or stomach-churning fright? Cliff Martinez seems to have
achieved both of these milestones here.

This horror mood piece is intense, sharply
impressionistic and Refn’s most definitive work to date.I’ve, seen...no, experienced nothing like it.

Saturday, November 3, 2012

Skyfall opens
with a silhouette of Daniel Craig. As the actor walks from the shadows and into
the light, we see his character slowly take form. He’s suit up and holding a
gun. A typical James Bond introduction. Continuing in the Bond tradition is a
long chase, this time ending with Bond’s death. Cue in the Skyfall opening
theme by Adele. It is, visually, so damn appealing but it also has some dark emotion
lurking underneath. Now you know what to expect from the film.

We see that Bond
has survived and is living a luxurious life in secrecy. He needs painkillers to
cope with a life amiss of purpose and it’s been long since he’s received that
shot of adrenaline he’s become a slave to. MI6 is his only way out. His boss, M
(Judi Dench), hands him a new assignment. Bond heads to Shanghai, a city that’s
inhabited by skyscrapers, decorated in lustre and coloured in neon. The filming locations are great. Not just in Shanghai but throughout the film.

Halfway through
my first viewing of Cloud Atlas, I knew I had to watch it again. When I
finished, I debated. Commercial compromise is much harder for me to take than
lack of ambition. Cloud Atlas sold out. I make that statement now after two
full viewings. I greatly admire and respect what the film initially set out to
do. This is a film with a numerous characters, lesser actors, several events,
plenty of scenes and a lot to chew on. They’re all pieced together into a
beautiful collage, as if it were the grandest editing project by a film scholar
of the highest rank. Nevertheless, the film bears it all evenly. The tone
wavers, but never falters.

Cloud Atlas is a
large web of narratives, switching back and forth between its sub-plots, each
telling a story from a different era and each just as interesting as the other.
The film’s talky and quite objectively defined; clearly a film with an agenda.
There’s no attempt to suck you in, not an ounce of realism. This is a cinematic
achievement that you are meant to experience from the outside. But the
perspective is sky-high and the approach is ground-breaking. It requires real audacity
to do what Cloud Atlas intends to do and even more to do it the way the film-makers
do it.

Sunday, October 28, 2012

Argo opens with
news channel excerpts that lead up to a revolution outside an American Embassy
in Iran. The people of Iran are outraged. The Shah that they had overthrown is
currently reaping the benefits of giving the country’s oil to America by
spending his final years in the comfort of American soil. The people want America to send the dictator back to be tried, and hanged. On
that demand, they are uncompromising. And they've had enough waiting.

The rioters jump
over the gate, storm into the embassy, capture the Americans and take them
hostage. Six of the superiors escape through an emergency fire exit and take
refuge at the Canadian ambassador’s house. Back in America, the CIA is busy figuring
out a way to smuggle these escaped hostages out of the country and their
primary concern is how things appear to the media. They joke about it, throw
ideas and then scorn at them. There’s a lot of biting sarcasm at the table. One
man, however, has a crazy idea he actually intends to take through. CIA agent
Tony Mendez (Ben Affleck) plans on going to Iran pretending to be an associate producer and
get these six escaped hostages back as part of his film crew. These six people
have parts to play- screen-writer, director, location manager, cinematographer,
production designer. They need to convince inspection officers and security
that they are the people they claim to be. Tony Mendez gets the green signal
from the CIA and a word of advice from his supervisor (Bryan Cranston)- “Good luck. The whole
world is watching you.”

Nicholas Jarecki's Arbitrage
revolves around a problematic life phase of a billionaire named Robert
Miller (Richard Gere). It’s his sixtieth birthday and he’s celebrating it at
home. You see him as a family man who intends to spend the rest of his life
with them even if it means selling off his company. This is just the version of
himself that he’s selling to his family.

He heads back to
his office. But instead, lands up at the mansion of a young lady who ignores
him to build the sexual tension before they pounce on each other with a strong
sense of urgency. Cut to Miller walking through his multi-storey office,
straight-faced and satisfied. He no longer looks like the family man he sold to
you at the table. He looks like the alpha male of the wolf pack that was out to
rip apart Liam Neeson in The Grey.

28 year-old Josh
Trank employs the omnipresent found footage gimmick, brought to new light by
The Blair witch Project and popularized by Paranormal Activity, in his
directorial debut Chronicle. Not only is he keen on using it uniquely, going
for a superhero film (as opposed to horror), he uses it wisely. The outcome of
his efforts is the most realistic Superhero movie to date.

Even the
uncharismatic Joseph Gordon Levitt, with the constantly sullen look on his
face, can be infused with a hint of excitement as he rides through streets and
races past cars in Premium Rush. Considering that both of the film’s main actors,
the other being Michael Shannon (playing a maniacal degenerate gambler with a
badge), are at risk of being typecast, it is safe to say that the bike is the
unique selling proposition of David Koepp’s new film. It’s just what gives JGL the
never-say-die attitude he lacks.

Tuesday, October 9, 2012

Andrew Dominik,
who sent Brad Pitt to the peak of his career with The Assasination of Jesse
James by the coward Robert Ford, one of my favourite films of 2007, reteams
with the actor in Killing Them Softly. He’s also managed to rope in James
Gandolfini of The Sopranos, Richard Jenkins of The Visitor, Ray Liotta of
Goodfellas and cast them in what appears to be a crime thriller. Tell me it’s
not an irresistible combination. Take into account that the film, not only
screened at the 2012 Cannes Film Festival but was even nominated for a Palme d’Or.
It has just everything going for it. And I was going to be seeing it two months
before the Rottentomatoes consensus was up. I was excited at this rare
opportunity.

Wes Anderson is one
of the few directors whose style of film-making I absolutely loathe. I took a
liking for Rushmore but other than that, I found all his films either plain
lazy or too subtle for their own good. I just couldn’t decide which. I never managed
to find the motivating factor behind his characters and their actions. It
echoed the experience of watching a foreign film without subtitles. But what’s
worse is the distant way with which he treats his characters. Anderson writes
damaged characters and weighs them down with heavy baggage from the past while
he rolls on the floor laughing with his finger pointed at them. I don’t believe
Kubrick or even The Old Mallick saw their characters with such iciness. While
those two auteurs saw their characters through alien eyes, Anderson sees his through
those of a heartless little prankster. Even crueller is the bright-and-sunny exterior;
a clear indication that the film-maker takes pleasure in torturing his
characters. To make a long story short, I rarely get Anderson’s films but when
I do, I’m mostly appalled.

When Terence
Mallick returned after a twenty-year hiatus with The Thin red line, I can only
imagine how people must’ve felt. This was a different Mallick. He wasn’t just
seeing his characters, he was feeling them. This particular trait was
predominant in The New World and more so in The Tree of Life. As feeling became
more and more abstract, Mallick’s films became more and more amorphous. Wes
Anderson takes a similar turn with Moonrise Kingdom.

The Cabin in the
Woods is a heartless, hilarious, campy self-satire. It criticizes the very
techniques it employs. Owing to a few extended pauses, the sound of your heart
beating becomes too loud for you to bear. And then, you’re hit with jump scares
that will give you convulsions. It’s a shallow and ridiculously loud piece of
work. But it’s also brilliant. I was completely caught off guard.

We have two perspectives
on a certain event that’s about to occur, shown in parallel. One shows us the
event live- a gang of youths are heading for a cabin in the woods, where they intend
to spend their weekend. They’re a generic bunch characterized by archetypes,
revealed by the film-maker himself. As the emphasized title obviously suggests,
there’s going to be mayhem. In all likelihood, it’ll have supernatural forces
at the helm. The other point of view is from a setting similar to Eric Byer’s
office in The Bourne Legacy. There’s a huge screen, an array of computers and
everyone’s pleasantly buzzing around like worker bees. The cabin and the woods
are controlled by a large corporation that consists of scientists and
technicians. Now, don’t take all of this at face value.

Sunday, September 9, 2012

Ezekiel the
Almighty. Jules summons him by reciting Ezekiel 25:17. He makes his first
appearance when he lets the bullets go through them without actually piercing
through them. Jules acknowledges his existence, takes him seriously and decides
to change his ways. Vincent calls it luck and discounts the deed. Ezekiel is
offended.

Jules and
Vincent discuss the incident in the car. Vincent condescendingly asks Marvin "Do
you think god came down from heaven and stopped these bullets?" Ezekiel
reacts impulsively by making him blow Marvin's head off. Vincent suggests that Jules
probably drove over a bump. Or was that Ezekiel? However, Jules says “Hey, the
car didn’t hit no motherfuckin bump.” Well, that leaves us with just one
conclusion. Ezekiel squeezed the trigger.

Friday, August 31, 2012

In 2009, Sylvester Stallone (better known as Rocky)
assembled action stars of yesteryear, himself included, and decided to make a
motion picture out of their past glory. He decided to call it The Expendables, an apt title
considering that that’s pretty much what they are in this film. Not just in the
eyes of the people under whom their characters serve but even to us, the
viewers. We remained outsiders, merely watching these strangers do things we
hardly gave two shits about, waiting with the false hope that our existences
would eventually be acknowledged. Bummer.

As of now The Bourne Supremacy
is my favourite of the film adaptations of The Bourne Trilogy. Mainly because
it doesn’t involve a pretty lady risking her life simply to be a part of this
ride. Of course, their relationship later develops into a half-baked affair.
Well, that’s fiction for you. And I’m not complaining. I’m just naturally more
inclined towards realism. The Bourne Legacy, within its fictional confines, is
the most realistic instalment to date. Rachel Weisz’s character doesn’t hop on
because she wants to begin an affair with Jeremy Renner’s Aaron Cross. She has
no plan, not a clue about saving herself from a very powerful organization and
she needs Aaron Cross, just as much as he needs her pharmaceutical experience
to disinfect him.

Despite
running in parallel to the previous instalment, The Bourne Legacy somehow
doesn’t share so much with its predecessors. It’s the same world but the
approach begins from elsewhere, the take is different and the perspective is through
another pair of eyes. The hunted doesn’t interest film-maker Tony Gilroy as
much as its hunter, or hunters. The Bourne Legacy is The Ghost Writer meets
Michael Clayton meets Bourne, in that
order. Even the swarm of antagonists are
given a fair share of screen-time and their mastermind, Eric Byer (Edward
Norton), a good deal of characterization.

Tuesday, August 7, 2012

The Dark Knight
Rises is grim, grand and massive. It’s
the perfect conclusion to Christopher Nolan’s superhero franchise. I think it
deserves Oscar recognition in multiple categories. Now, don’t get carried away
because I said that. I know what I’m saying. I don’t claim the film to be multilayered
or subtle or perched on realism. It doesn’t aspire to achieve any of these. But
what it is set out to do, it couldn’t have been done better. The most brilliant
aspect of The Dark Knight Rises is the high degree of parallelism- there are several
primary characters in so many threads of events that run together
simultaneously.

Batman Begins
took us through the heart and soul of Bruce Wayne. We knew by the end of it,
why he does what he does. The other characters in the series including, and
especially, The Joker were strongly characterized. But we never knew why they
are the way they are. Character development was absent in the commercially
compromised The Dark Knight. In the Dark Knight Rises, the origins of every
character are known. Nolan split The Dark Knight into good and bad; like a logician
would. Scenes of ‘the people of Gotham’ planted on two ships and forced to
choose between the lives of others and that of their own came off to me as a
simplistic exercise in moral science. The act of Batman making the selfless
choice of playing scapegoat to Harvey Dent’s criminal activities rings false. Particularly
because this happens not long after he selfishly chose to rescue his girlfriend
over ‘the shining example of justice.’ Even with all these flaws, The Dark
Knight still emerged as a successful film. The Dark Knight Rises is the perfect
antithesis to both, the central theme of fear in Batman Begins and that one thing
that The Dark Knight had to say - “People deserve more than the truth. They
deserve their faith to be rewarded.” And I don’t believe I’ve come across
another film-maker letting the audience see him take diametrically opposite
standpoints on a subject and defend them both with equal conviction.

Tuesday, July 3, 2012

I first saw
Markus Schleinzer’s Michael at the Chennai International Film Festival in
December 2011. The festival was powered by obscure films from unsung directors
and with respect to narrowing down my choices, I certainly had my work cut out.
I don’t like going by plotlines. Stories don’t matter to me nearly as much as
storytelling and characters do. Critical acclaim was the only deciding factor.
But most of these films hadn’t even been released. Michael premiered ‘In
Competition’ at the 2011 Cannes Film Festival. I learnt of the premise only
after the presenter said “The film is about a paedophile who locks up a kid in
his basement.” My hopes were up. I like films that permeate into the dark depths
of the human mind. Michael did that and more.

A half-bald man
is just getting home from work. The house is a barren place. Empty. Quiet.
Lifeless. You hear the sound of things being moved, things being dropped,
things being carefully placed. The window blinds fall. He takes the stairs down
to the basement and unlocks a heavy metal door. “Come on” he says. A little boy
walks out of an unlit room. They share a silent dinner and watch TV hoping to
inspire a hint of life into their lives. The boy is urged downstairs, back to
the basement. The man follows shortly after and shuts the heavy metal door
behind him. The film cuts to a visual of the man washing his genitals. Say
Hello to our lead character, Michael (Michael Fuith). And his boy toy, Wolfgang (David Rauchenberger).

As
interesting as watching paint dry is a phrase that might ring true to many with
regard to The Mill and the Cross. Story,
characters, human element… they all take a back seat. It’s all about the
visuals.

At first, The Mill and The Cross seemed to me
like a series of paintings with moving objects that were heading nowhere. And I
had intended to bring it up in a critical manner. The film evokes stillness and
boredom in you. But only as it should; echoing the feelings of an artist who, bored
out of his mind, taunts a helpless spider with a stick. The spider hobbles
around in its dewdrop studded web but remains unwilling to abandon it.
Inspiration gushes in and sets the creative juices flowing. Time stands still,
the artist seizes the moment and it all flows onto paper. When he begins to see
the beauty of the town, you slowly involve yourself in the film and recognize
its beauty. That’s a rich payoff, the realization that all of this documentary-style
spying has amounted to something meaningful.

You might be confused at seeing a prefix ‘The’
to the title of Martin Scorsese’s ‘Goodfellas’. The purpose of this article is
to address, and expose, the characterization of Goodfellas. What makes the
Goodfellas so appealing? They don’t give a fuck. The approach director Scorsese
and Editor Thelma Schoonmaker employ at making them give off that vibe is more
than meets the eye.

Scorsese chooses
long tracking shots to introduce us to the Goodfellas. You come to know of
their quirks. Take their style of nicknaming, Jimmy Two-Times who always said
everything twice”I’m gonna get the papers, get the papers.” Or that the sons
were named Peter or Paul and their wives were all Marie. The three principal
characters here are Henry Hill(Ray Liotta), Jimmy Conway (Robert Deniro) and
Tommy Devito (Joe Pesci). They work under caporegime Paulie (Paul Sorvino).

Let’s begin with
Henry Hill and his ambition. “Ever since I can remember, I wanted to be a
gangster. It meant being somebody in a neighbourhood full of nobodys. It meant
belonging somewhere and being treated like a grownup.” The moment that line
falls on your ears, you believe it.

Thursday, May 31, 2012

This isn’t a review. This is a write-up of my experience of revisiting,
after a few years, the 1995 film Casino. Contrary to its title, Casino is not
one of those gambling movies. It’s a follow up to Martin Scorsese’s mafia mob
drama Goodfellas.

“When you love someone, you gotta trust them. There’s no
other way. You gotta give them the key to everything that’s yours. Otherwise,
what’s the point? And for a while, I believe that’s the kind of love I had” says
Sam ‘Ace’ Rothstein as he walks out with a cigar in his mouth and into a car
that blows up. What does one make of that? Scorsese’s films rarely begin with
the beginning. You’re given a glimpse of (mostly) some part of the middle. Just
like how Kubrick began Lolita with its ending. By showing us where the story climaxes,
our minds aren’t perched on the fate of the characters but instead on their
functioning.

Sam ‘Ace’ Rothstein (Robert Deniro) heads a Casino in Las
Vegas. He might be working under the title of ‘Casino Executive’ in a Casino
owned by Philip Green, who exists as the squeaky clean front man under the
orders of the elders of a mafia family, but Sam was the boss. The first time
the camera pans into his magnificent Casino, you see it brightly lit and
adorned with slot machines lined up against each other. Sam explains about the
business, “We’re the only winners. The players don’t stand a chance.”

Thursday, May 3, 2012

There’s a creature. This creature is part human- part animal. The
human goes to work at day, earns lucratively and lives a high-end lifestyle. At
the break of dusk, this creature retreats to his den, morphing into an animal
with a voracious sexual appetite and engages in a world of sexual activity.
Hookers often visit, cybersex is routine and his store is filled with cartons
of pornographic magazines. This creature
is Brandon, Michael Fassbender’s character in Shame.

There’s no guarantee that the beast will remain hidden inside.
Even at his workplace, it possesses him unexpectedly, forcing him to masturbate
in the restroom. It all works out for Brandon, who keeps his sexual feelings
discreet because he doesn’t believe he has complete control over this hypersexual
animal inside him. Shame suggests that something has happened in the past for
him to be threatened by this inner beast.

Everything is fine until his den is invaded by an intruder, the
only person Brandon has a human connection with. Brandon throws out his porn
filled laptop, the magazines and the sex toys. Hookers are kept out of
action. The food supply to the sexual
animal is cut off and you’ll see it is no easy task to keep it pacified.

It’s a brand new day. A chick flick is playing on TV but the only person in the room is sleeping on her face. She wakes up and her prominent dark circles catch your attention. Mavis is divorced and in her mid thirties. She binges on coke, ice cream and alcohol. Her social life is confined to one night stands. ‘Waverly Prep’ is the name of a young adult series she’s served as an author for. The series is nearing its end and her boss is pounding her with phone calls asking her to get done with the final edition. This unending loop of events is interrupted by an e-mail from her high-school sweetheart, Buddy. Having grown weary of her lifestyle here she decides to pay hometown a visit and get him back, since “they were meant to be together.” Buddy is a married man now, busy raising his new-born daughter.

Doesn’t it sound like a chick flick? Don’t be mistaken. It’s a personality study; one that’s presented in a darkly comic manner.

Wednesday, April 4, 2012

What if there was another earth with another you? What if
you met this other you? Would you tell yourself what to do and what not to do?
Would you save your other you? Would you ask yourself what you think of you?
What would you tell yourself if you met yourself? “Better luck next time” says Brit
Marling’s character in Mike Cahill’s Another Earth.

Seventeen-year old Rhoda has just received her acceptance
letter from MIT. “I felt like anything was possible,” she says having just
finished celebrating the occasion. She’s going out for a drive. On the radio,
she learns that another earth has been spotted in the sky. She looks out. Her
car swerves off course and collides with another car. She survives with minor
bruises but the occupants of the other car are seriously injured, two of whom
succumb to their injuries. Being a minor, she’s sent to prison for a short term
of four years and her identity remains undisclosed.

Skip to four years later. Rhoda is now an emotionally remote
island. Her family and she have grown apart. It’s understood that she hasn’t
written to or met with them since. Probably to avoid confrontation, to avoid
being faced with the knowledge of what she is missing, to avoid being reminded
of her stagnant state. Making matters worse is the fact that they are all
people who deal with a problem by not talking about it.

Sunday, March 25, 2012

David Schwimmer’s Trust opens with the track “Give a little” by Hanson. A teenage girl is preparing breakfast, only to follow it with her morning jog. The camera invisibly places itself on various corners of the room while it continues to scan her every move. But she has not the slightest idea. Cut to the title card “Trust”, designed in the plainest white font on a black background and let the track slowly fade away. You trust that this sets the tone for the film, a light teen drama.

Annie is celebrating her birthday with her family at a dinner table. You sense the unconditional positive regard shared. In school, Annie is merely an existence. The ‘cool’ girl invites her to a party, one that has teenagers doing the most taboo things. Annie is intimidated by their exuded sexual sophistication and returns home with a bad taste in her mouth. She tries talking to her dad about how they freaked her out but he cuts her saying that he’s busy with work. She turns to Charlie, a teenage boy with similar athletic interests. He tells her what she wants to hear. There begins their cyber relationship.

Charlie slowly reveals that he’s actually a twenty-year old sophomore. Annie lets it pass. Soon, twenty becomes twenty-five. Two months in, they meet at a mall. Charlie shows up as a middle-aged man. It deeply upsets Annie. How carefully (yet effortlessly) he coaxes her into sleeping with him from that point is disturbingly real. Deep inside she knows she’s making a mistake, one after the other but she doesn’t think such an opportunity will come again and gives in trusting that nothing will go wrong. The verbal ruses that Charlie uses to manipulate Annie... just brilliant screenwriting. Even petty comments on an ice cream flavour such as “You win, Pistachio rocks” earns her trust.

Wednesday, January 11, 2012

Stephen Myers (Ryan Gosling) tells reporter Ida (Marisa Tomei) “I’m not naïve okay? I’ve worked on more campaigns than most people will have by the time they’re forty. I’m telling you, this is the one.” Stephen is a junior campaign manager for Governor Mike Morris (George Clooney), a presidential candidate competing against a Senator, Ted Pullman. Between Stephen and Morris is Paul (Philip Seymour Hoffman), Stephen’s superior and senior campaign manager. Stephen has just written a draft that Governor Mike Morris feels urged to accept. While he rides high on that, a call comes from Tom Duffy (Paul Giamatti), a rival campaign manager diametrically opposite Paul, who invites him to a political tryst and gets the ball rolling.

Stephen meets with him out of an emotional need to feel self-secure and maybe even with the intent of revamping his political career. Tom Duffy praises himself for being jaded, cynical and having the ability to turn things to his advantage. Paul, on the other hand believes that loyalty is the only currency you can count on in politics. Human errors are made but there are heavy prices to pay. Something momentous is going to happen. Bring in press reporter Ida, a scoop-hungry fiend that will pounce on anyone for it and you await the spawn of an irreparable situation.

Wednesday, January 4, 2012

French filmmakers seem to rely on the beauty of simplicity. I’ve not seen too many French movies but I have seen enough to spot a resemblance. Their style of filmmaking is minimalistic. There’s nothing colourful about their movies. You cannot split them into physical elements (cinematography, editing, direction) and appreciate them. Neither can you single out any particular aspect for having a particularly stronger effect on you and go on about it. Their characters, normal human beings whom you can easily relate to. Their stories, earthly. Not of a man that’s caught in a sticky situation, not of the underdog that goes from rags to riches, not a twisted story that frightens yet pulls you in. There’s nothing cinematic here, no do or die.

Monday, December 12, 2011

The Station Agent is about Fin (Peter Dinklage), a man with an unusually short name and an abnormally small body. He’s reminded of it at nearly every point of his life by almost everybody he meets. The little boys playing at a ground near his workplace enquire about the whereabouts of ‘Snow White’. The lady at the cash counter says something apologetic for not having seen him. A cheeky old woman grins with victory after taking a picture of him. The librarian freaks out on almost walking into him and explains that she thought the place was empty. Even the good news of inheriting a piece rural property left by a friend comes along with distasteful dessert, “You’re one of those memorable people.” And you will laugh as expected. But director Thomas Mccarthy doesn’t let the film capitalize on Fin’s short stature for laughs. He directs his actors with precision and lets them sink into the skins of the characters. You see their sadness. You see something exceptional in it and you hop on the train.

Sunday, December 4, 2011

Margin Call is set at a large investment bank. It begins with a firing squad walking down a long corridor, sending chills up the spines of nearby employees. Yes, people are going to get fired. Head of sales, Sam Rogers (Kevin Spacey) explains “It’s going to get worse before it gets better.” Among the many terminated is Eric Dale (Stanley Tucci), a high ranking employee in risk management. He insists on finishing up with his final report but his boss reminds him that it doesn’t concern him anymore. His protégé, Peter Sullivan (Zachary Quinto) escorts him to the lift where he hands over the responsibility of completing the final report and says “Be careful.” Before Sullivan can react the elevator closes. Later that night, on finishing the report, Peter Sullivan predicts an economic meltdown. Everyone’s going down. “Look at all these people; they don’t have the slightest idea about what’s about to happen,” he remarks.

Thursday, October 20, 2011

When I told people to check out the series, ‘Six Feet Under’, they all asked the same question- “What is it about?” I had no answer, so I said “Just watch it.” A number of possible answers came to mind but none of them could accurately represent what the series was really about. When I finished it, I found the correct answer to the question- Life and Death. That is what Six Feet under is about. It’s funny I didn’t get the answer before. The celestial opening theme suggests just that. It seemed apt for the series but I never asked what about it made it apt.

Six Feet Under revolves around a funeral home, Fisher & Sons. Every episode begins with introducing new characters, one of which contributes to the family business by, well, dying. The deaths fade to white, instead of black, because it is these deaths that fuel the fisher family, and the series. Ironically, the pilot episode begins with the death of Nathaniel Fisher, the patriarch of the family and the owner of the business. His younger son, David, plays by the book and makes funeral arrangements for his father while battling with his own sense of shock. His elder brother, Nate, is an extreme libertarian. He continuously grunts at the subdued way with which people choose to grieve. The youngest, Claire, complies with indifference. Their mother, Ruth, drowned by ambivalent feelings confesses that she’s been having an affair with her hair dresser. This episode establishes clearly the personalities of the Fisher family. How they progress or regress, you will see for yourself.

Wednesday, October 12, 2011

After the pulsating ten minute heist (ending with Ryan Gosling almost going face to face with a cop to ooze ‘cool’) comes the title sequence in pink font with electro house music playing in the background. I don’t know why but something about it told me the film was set in the late eighties. Now, I’m expecting Drive to plunge into the darkness of neo-noir with Driver being the hero, as opposed to, a character. But then, the stoic Driver flashes an effeminate smile and descends into a montage that is, set near a pond and guided by a pop track with lyrics like “A real hero, a real human being”. Now, I’m embarrassed. I’m skeptical about how this is going to turn out. Seriously, what the heck is this kind of music doing in a neo-noir? This is just what I’d expect to see in a chick flick or a daytime TV movie. It only gets worse when you have to play spectator to the awkward stares shared between Driver and Irene (Carey Mulligan). Watch the film a second time and you’ll see these scenes exist for characterization purposes.

When I first saw the trailer for Drive, I was expecting an action film and a charismatic Ryan Gosling. That’s how the movie presented itself to be. If you’ve seen the trailer, you know the film’s plot. However, the film isn’t plot centric. It has action, crime and it is fairly dark but I’d categorize it as a character study. With very little dialogue, Nicolas Winding Refn has managed to vividly characterize his players.

Tuesday, September 27, 2011

“Mama, can you pass me the phone?” asks the girl. Her mom quietly passes the salt shaker and they continue with their dinner as if this was routine procedure. You're the odd one out. This is when you start wondering if there is something wrong with the family sitting at the table. Delve deeper and you’ll realize that everything’s wrong with it.

This is a family whose functioning is determined by the twisted minds of the heads of the household. The oligarchs have reared their children in this house since birth. Their three subjects (now in their late teens) haven’t dared to step beyond the compound gate. The outside world (so they’ve been told) is populated with carnivorous cats (which they are trained to bark at) and its ground intends to consume anyone who sets foot on it. Their father drives out to work. They watch the gate slowly closing itself behind him. They will have their day, they believe. But they must wait until their dogtooth falls off. While they wait for that day to come, they let time pass by watching home-recorded movies, consuming anesthetics and positioning themselves correctly to catch overhead airplanes.